Crotchrocket Slim:I'm telling you that you clearly don't understand how the authorities act with such information, and that were they to attempt to do what you are suggesting they would need to expand the NSA etc. staff to such a degree to the hundreds of thousands;

Because if a program doesn't instantly cover the entire nation upon implementation, it's not a violation? Where exactly do you draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable? Also, you don't know exactly what the government does with the information, and they're fairly well known for overstepping their authority.

Crotchrocket Slim:Also, you yourself are engaging in your own ad hominem attacks against me in quoting that link and you don't even realize it.

Fail! Pointing out a logical fallacy is not in and of itself a logical fallacy.

MartinD-35:I read a book this summer (history teacher and history buff) that you need to read. It's a simple enough title for you to understand "1877" (subtitled "America's Year of Living Violently") by Michael A. Bellesiles. Could possibly give you some additional insight into the fallacy of your argument. It's what you do with that information (republicon's, abuse it) (democrats, use it wisely to prevent terrorism). I'm pretty far left of the average Democrat (green party but not a vote waster).

First of all, no vote is ever "wasted". Second, if you're taking to time to post, why not actually make an argument from the book instead of saying "hey, read this book".

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

Sometimes ridicule is well earned, like here.

Because unlike you, I understand that technology and manufacturing capacity increase as time moves forward, or because I believe that surveilling a population with the same level of attention without probable cause on the level of the Stasi is in itself a violation of what is "reasonable"? Maybe you'd care to present an argument along with your ad hominem attacks.

I seriously hope you are planning not to vote libertarian (read your profile). You have a valid concern, but you are a bit late in expressing it. I think it was 1960 when President and all time nice guy (who wasn't really all that bright about politics and managing a government (but was a VERY good administrative general) Eisenhower warned us to beware of the massive military industrial complex he (well, his minions to be fare) had just created.

Crotchrocket Slim:To those of us outside of your little anarchist cell, please explain how this is a loss of liberty. You know because you're so so much smarter than the rest of us sheeple, we need such "obivious" things explained to us by some potentially mentally ill dude living out on the fringe of society with the rest of the dregs.

1/10 You really try too hard. It's like you are desperate or something. It's supposed to come naturally, and you just don't have it.

BraveNewCheneyWorld:Crotchrocket Slim: I'm telling you that you clearly don't understand how the authorities act with such information, and that were they to attempt to do what you are suggesting they would need to expand the NSA etc. staff to such a degree to the hundreds of thousands;

Because if a program doesn't instantly cover the entire nation upon implementation, it's not a violation? Where exactly do you draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable? Also, you don't know exactly what the government does with the information, and they're fairly well known for overstepping their authority.

Crotchrocket Slim: Also, you yourself are engaging in your own ad hominem attacks against me in quoting that link and you don't even realize it.

Fail! Pointing out a logical fallacy is not in and of itself a logical fallacy.

MartinD-35: I read a book this summer (history teacher and history buff) that you need to read. It's a simple enough title for you to understand "1877" (subtitled "America's Year of Living Violently") by Michael A. Bellesiles. Could possibly give you some additional insight into the fallacy of your argument. It's what you do with that information (republicon's, abuse it) (democrats, use it wisely to prevent terrorism). I'm pretty far left of the average Democrat (green party but not a vote waster).

First of all, no vote is ever "wasted". Second, if you're taking to time to post, why not actually make an argument from the book instead of saying "hey, read this book".

Because, like most good books, I can't do that on fark without losing the average farker. Suffice it to say our President was using the federal troops to bust up peaceful demonstrations violently by causing them to become violent with his Pinkerton private security army and other such like things.

BraveNewCheneyWorld:Because if a program doesn't instantly cover the entire nation upon implementation, it's not a violation? Where exactly do you draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable? Also, you don't know exactly what the government does with the information, and they're fairly well known for overstepping their authority.

Utterly irrelevant to my thinking in any case. Even if this software were being used to monitor the movements of individuals by strictly local authorities, there is absolutely no expectation of privacy in public spaces.

Fail! Pointing out a logical fallacy is not in and of itself a logical fallacy.

Yet you don't bother responding to any of the non-ad hominem points I raise. You are guilty of the only fail we care about on Fark.

Makh:Crotchrocket Slim: To those of us outside of your little anarchist cell, please explain how this is a loss of liberty. You know because you're so so much smarter than the rest of us sheeple, we need such "obivious" things explained to us by some potentially mentally ill dude living out on the fringe of society with the rest of the dregs.

1/10 You really try too hard. It's like you are desperate or something. It's supposed to come naturally, and you just don't have it.

Look who tosses up a trolling score when you have nothing of value to add to the convo and you are called out on it; I see that a lot on this forum. Also, way to not even bother to prove your case by actually, you know, proving your case.

MartinD-35:BraveNewCheneyWorld: Crotchrocket Slim: I'm telling you that you clearly don't understand how the authorities act with such information, and that were they to attempt to do what you are suggesting they would need to expand the NSA etc. staff to such a degree to the hundreds of thousands;

Because if a program doesn't instantly cover the entire nation upon implementation, it's not a violation? Where exactly do you draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable? Also, you don't know exactly what the government does with the information, and they're fairly well known for overstepping their authority.

Crotchrocket Slim: Also, you yourself are engaging in your own ad hominem attacks against me in quoting that link and you don't even realize it.

Fail! Pointing out a logical fallacy is not in and of itself a logical fallacy.

MartinD-35: I read a book this summer (history teacher and history buff) that you need to read. It's a simple enough title for you to understand "1877" (subtitled "America's Year of Living Violently") by Michael A. Bellesiles. Could possibly give you some additional insight into the fallacy of your argument. It's what you do with that information (republicon's, abuse it) (democrats, use it wisely to prevent terrorism). I'm pretty far left of the average Democrat (green party but not a vote waster).

First of all, no vote is ever "wasted". Second, if you're taking to time to post, why not actually make an argument from the book instead of saying "hey, read this book".

Because, like most good books, I can't do that on fark without losing the average farker. Suffice it to say our President was using the federal troops to bust up peaceful demonstrations violently by causing them to become violent with his Pinkerton private security army and other such like things.

Probably not in the book but I do have to admit that shiat in Anaheim was scary as hell; that said I'm going to keep calling out people who don't have reasonable objections to this sort of thing.

Bear in mind a lot of protesters are wearing face masks these days making discussions about this software farking moot anyway.

MartinD-35:Because, like most good books, I can't do that on fark without losing the average farker. Suffice it to say our President was using the federal troops to bust up peaceful demonstrations violently by causing them to become violent with his Pinkerton private security army and other such like things.

Does that somehow justify surveillance without probable cause?

Crotchrocket Slim:BraveNewCheneyWorld: Because if a program doesn't instantly cover the entire nation upon implementation, it's not a violation? Where exactly do you draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable? Also, you don't know exactly what the government does with the information, and they're fairly well known for overstepping their authority.

Utterly irrelevant to my thinking in any case. Even if this software were being used to monitor the movements of individuals by strictly local authorities, there is absolutely no expectation of privacy in public spaces.

Fail! Pointing out a logical fallacy is not in and of itself a logical fallacy.

Yet you don't bother responding to any of the non-ad hominem points I raise. You are guilty of the only fail we care about on Fark.

Actually, I responded to each of your points. You have yet to address what I've said in response. Here, in case you are somehow incapable of scrolling up, and/or have the memory of a goldfish.

BraveNewCheneyWorld:By your logic, once we have something that can do the equivalent of an MRI on someone's entire house as police cars drive through the neighborhood, it's entirely reasonable, as long as we can manufacture them inexpensively.

BraveNewCheneyWorld:I understand that technology and manufacturing capacity increase as time moves forward, or because I believe that surveilling a population with the same level of attention without probable cause on the level of the Stasi is in itself a violation of what is "reasonable"?

BraveNewCheneyWorld:Because if a program doesn't instantly cover the entire nation upon implementation, it's not a violation? Where exactly do you draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable? Also, you don't know exactly what the government does with the information, and they're fairly well known for overstepping their authority.

So, will you now address any of these points with a direct answer, or are you going to ignore them again and harp on the fact that I said that you might have the memory of a goldfish in an effort to avoid substantive debate?

Crotchrocket Slim:Look who tosses up a trolling score when you have nothing of value to add to the convo and you are called out on it; I see that a lot on this forum. Also, way to not even bother to prove your case by actually, you know, proving your case.

It's not that I called you a troll, actually I say you aren't a troll. But you sadly missed that too. You got a really low score because you try too hard. Why don't you try a different approach, somewhere else? Someone might be fooled if you just keep trying. You are just a nice and rational person pretending to be a mentally deficient troll.

Since you want an explanation of what I said. I hate doing this because it loses something when you have to explain a joke.

I pretended to get outraged by the article saying less instead of fewer, as opposed to the obvious issue that everyone else was bringing up.

namatad:So part of me thinks that something "like" this could also be used to prevent/reduce identity theft.Guy tries to use my credit card and doesnt look like me, card gets rejected.Home loans, TADA, etc, etc, etc.

How many open criminal cases (rape, assault, murder, robbery, fraud) have DNA, fingerprints, photos, sketches and no leads?Purely as step one for generating leads, I have no problem with this. (mostly)

We have KNOWN that this is coming for a long time. Cameras everywhere, government, corporate and citizen. People put trillions of photos online.FFS, GIS alone is an amusing start to a long chain of events.

As much as photos can be used to put you on the suspect list, photos can also help generate alibis./Here is a series of photos and cell tower pings, showing my location for the last 2 weeks. I was in chicago, not NYC, therefore, I was not the one who shot rush limbog.

tkwasny:The history of mans behavior is key to understanding its future.

Once a power to manipulate and control people is available (just available, thats all thats needed) man will devise a way to to separate those with access and power from those that do not. What happens next to those cast out is the string of horrors throughout history.

Go ahead and argue the "but if they did nothing wrong, they have nothing to worry about" side. I dare you.

tkwasny:The history of mans behavior is key to understanding its future.

Once a power to manipulate and control people is available (just available, thats all thats needed) man will devise a way to to separate those with access and power from those that do not. What happens next to those cast out is the string of horrors throughout history.

Go ahead and argue the "but if they did nothing wrong, they have nothing to worry about" side. I dare you.

THIS.

This is the difference (at this place and time) between liberals and conservatives.

Liberals (at this place and time) are in love with the concept of Big Government as a tool for justice and progress, correctly understanding that, properly used and controlled, government can really accomplish a lot of good things.

So can fire.

Conservatives (at this place and time) look at the correct fire analogy and history (one does not even to argue "human nature") and distrust all things Big Government.

BraveNewCheneyWorld:MartinD-35: Because, like most good books, I can't do that on fark without losing the average farker. Suffice it to say our President was using the federal troops to bust up peaceful demonstrations violently by causing them to become violent with his Pinkerton private security army and other such like things.

Does that somehow justify surveillance without probable cause?

Crotchrocket Slim: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Because if a program doesn't instantly cover the entire nation upon implementation, it's not a violation? Where exactly do you draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable? Also, you don't know exactly what the government does with the information, and they're fairly well known for overstepping their authority.

Utterly irrelevant to my thinking in any case. Even if this software were being used to monitor the movements of individuals by strictly local authorities, there is absolutely no expectation of privacy in public spaces.

Fail! Pointing out a logical fallacy is not in and of itself a logical fallacy.

Yet you don't bother responding to any of the non-ad hominem points I raise. You are guilty of the only fail we care about on Fark.

Actually, I responded to each of your points. You have yet to address what I've said in response. Here, in case you are somehow incapable of scrolling up, and/or have the memory of a goldfish.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: By your logic, once we have something that can do the equivalent of an MRI on someone's entire house as police cars drive through the neighborhood, it's entirely reasonable, as long as we can manufacture them inexpensively.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: I understand that technology and manufacturing capacity increase as time moves forward, or because I believe that surveilling a population with the same level of attention without probable cause on the level of the Stasi is in itself a violation of what is "reasonable"?

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Because if a program doesn't instantly cover the entire nation upon imp ...

Huh? you seem to be a bit confused here. I made the point that they've been using illegal surveillance for some time now and doesn't really change a thing, since it isn't effectively surveillance.

This method also keeps you from running afoul of laws stipulating that wearing a face mask is illegal. This probably won't last long, but the key to facial recognition is having a face that looks like a face.

BronyMedic:I always like it when truthers out themselves. The mental gymnastics they perform to link events to proof that the Government somehow conspired to cause or allow 9/11 to happen the way it did never ceases to amaze me, especially in the face of the overwhelming evidence from thousands of Scientists, Specialists, and Engineers, and numerous Government, and Nongovernmental agencies conducting investigations, in addition to confessions from the people who planned it.

You, on the other hand, seem to not know what a Correlation vs. Causation fallacy is.

You're not a clever pony. You're not even original by claiming this crap. All you are is the guy that everyone else points and laughs at. Look. I get it. You want to feel special and important. You want to feel like the wolf among sheeple. But the simple fact of the matter is that people do horrible things to other people for no reason than to hurt others and incite fear, and that's what happened here. There wasn't a cabal of Magic Illuminati holographic missiles. There wasn't some special, sooper-secret "nano-thermite" built into the towers 30 years before the attack so that they could be used in this matter.

No. These were 19 pissed off, inhuman monsters - mostly of the Saudi Arabian flavor - who decided to murder people in the best way they could.

GAT_00:I think it's quaint that you suddenly think this is a new thing that we need to suddenly be afraid about. Facial recognition systems have been online and used en masse for years, but you didn't care Subby because nobody pointed you to an article then and told you to be outraged.

Yeah, come on guys... Everyone knows there's a well-established 18 month statute of limitations on criticism of government programs. If you're not pissed within 18 months, you have no right to say anything about it ever. Or... if there's a Democrat in the White House. You should just accept that the government knows better.

SoothinglyDeranged:For the last time, paranoidmitter, nobody gives a flying fark about your boring ass.

right, nobody gives a fark about him, but people care about Harrison Ford and this stuff tracks him too... and it isn't the "gov't"... it is people that work for the gov't. Just ordinary people too stupid to work in the private sector, peppered in with people that are power hungry and above the law.

Just imagine Sheriff Joe's lacky who is a true believer (even more than the sheriff) has the ability to track anybody that they might want to just randomly arrest.

whenever there is something happening like this and someone tells you "nobody will abuse it" or "nobody cares about you" or "if you have nothing to hide..." you should immediately ask yourself, "Why can't i track my politicians the same way?" "why can't i track the police the same way?" i don't really care about any individual cop or local politician, do they have something to hide? aren't they more accountable to us than we are to them? we should be able to watch our politicians 24/7 long before they can do it to us.

i'ts kinda funny that i even have to say this stuff... it's like the constitution keeps the gov't in check enough that people just take for granted that they will always be in check, no matter how much power you give them. even though we know that isn't true, we see examples every day, and that is why it was written in the first place.

gh0strid3r:JerkyMeat: The U.S. government benefited the most by 911 in all aspects and with this fact and mountains of other facts that have been marginalized by most as "truther" nonsense, 911 was most likely planned by the powerful in the U.S. for this benefit. This rollout by the FBI is just another example of the benefit of the federal power grab "justified" by a so called terrorist attack.

Still thinking correlation implies causation? Just because an entity benefits from an event doesn't automatically prove they initiated it. People benefit from others' misfortune all the time without causing that misfortune. A big example is how World War II boosted the economy of the United States. Not only did we not start that war, we did everything we could to stay our of it for as long as possible.

Wars benefit the populace by lowering the population or stealing resources.

mxwjs:SoothinglyDeranged: For the last time, paranoidmitter, nobody gives a flying fark about your boring ass.

right, nobody gives a fark about him, but people care about Harrison Ford and this stuff tracks him too... and it isn't the "gov't"... it is people that work for the gov't. Just ordinary people too stupid to work in the private sector, peppered in with people that are power hungry and above the law.

Just imagine Sheriff Joe's lacky who is a true believer (even more than the sheriff) has the ability to track anybody that they might want to just randomly arrest.

whenever there is something happening like this and someone tells you "nobody will abuse it" or "nobody cares about you" or "if you have nothing to hide..." you should immediately ask yourself, "Why can't i track my politicians the same way?" "why can't i track the police the same way?" i don't really care about any individual cop or local politician, do they have something to hide? aren't they more accountable to us than we are to them? we should be able to watch our politicians 24/7 long before they can do it to us.

i'ts kinda funny that i even have to say this stuff... it's like the constitution keeps the gov't in check enough that people just take for granted that they will always be in check, no matter how much power you give them. even though we know that isn't true, we see examples every day, and that is why it was written in the first place.

There exist people, at some point or another, that will take advantage of anything, but if you plan on living in fear of those people you're going to live a tiring life. It's facial recognition software, and without tempting fate too strongly, just how terrified should one honestly be about the ability of a computer to recognize one's face. Take a deep breath and chill the fark out.

this is what they are telling the public about. you can bet your sweet arse they have stuff they are using that you won't know about for 20 years. but you're not a hoodlum anyway so who cares.

Good thing the FBI hasn't been complicit in any murders lately.

Oh, wait...

"Fark Independent" isn't really independent.

I'm truly independent and I'm on Fark. We're not mythical, we exist. We're just not idiotic partisans who goose step on command. If you have any doubts about my independence and any familiarity with my posts you're an idiot. Your partisanship is just you showing us, proving really, that you're unable to think for yourself. Of course, there's likely something I don't agree with in your favorite side's platform, rhetoric, or behavior that likely won't be able to reason so you'll surely consider me a member of the opposite party and an independent in name only or, as you said, a "Fark Independent."

"Fark Independent" as an attack can be taken to mean, "I am unable and unwilling to think for myself. I can't denounce your views with logic, dismiss them as racist, or fully comprehend the intricacies involved so (I'm)/you're compelled to call someone names, wet (my)yourself, and denounce the other as being illogical and bigoted regardless of merit." It is intellectual dishonest but an oft used tactic.

To cite myself as an example of your idiotic belief system: I've voted for only one winning president and have voted in many more elections than you. That president? It was Clinton, his second term. I have, in all my years, never found a republican presidential candidate that I could vote for. Just because we can think for ourselves and actually act on those thoughts doesn't mean we're Republicans. We don't disagree with you because you're a Democrat. We disagree with you because you're an idiot.

That you need to invent a mythical creature to explain away the logical fallacies is telling, don't you think? No, probably not. You probably won't think. That's something you should consider trying if you get the chance, it is difficult but liberating. The quality of the results hinges entirely on your own effort and willingness to put the labor into it. Good luck should you opt for that path. Seriously, good luck. I'd start with changing the thinking that "Independent" is a bad thing but that's probably your greatest stumbling block.

/was stupid in certain things in the past too//was man enough to admit it/is surely stupid in other areas to this day

this is what they are telling the public about. you can bet your sweet arse they have stuff they are using that you won't know about for 20 years. but you're not a hoodlum anyway so who cares.

Good thing the FBI hasn't been complicit in any murders lately.

Oh, wait...

"Fark Independent" isn't really independent.

I'm truly independent and I'm on Fark. We're not mythical, we exist. We're just not idiotic partisans who goose step on command. If you have any doubts about my independence and any familiarity with my posts you're an idiot. Your partisanship is just you showing us, proving really, that you're unable to think for yourself. Of course, there's likely something I don't agree with in your favorite side's platform, rhetoric, or behavior that likely won't be able to reason so you'll surely consider me a member of the opposite party and an independent in name only or, as you said, a "Fark Independent."

"Fark Independent" as an attack can be taken to mean, "I am unable and unwilling to think for myself. I can't denounce your views with logic, dismiss them as racist, or fully comprehend the intricacies involved so (I'm)/you're compelled to call someone names, wet (my)yourself, and denounce the other as being illogical and bigoted regardless of merit." It is intellectual dishonest but an oft used tactic.

To cite myself as an example of your idiotic belief system: I've voted for only one winning president and have voted in many more elections than you. That president? It was Clinton, his second term. I have, in all my years, never found a republican presidential candidate that I could vote for. Just because we can think for ourselves and actually act on those thoughts doesn't mean we're Republicans. We don't disagree with you because you're a Democrat. We disagree with you because you're an idiot.

this is what they are telling the public about. you can bet your sweet arse they have stuff they are using that you won't know about for 20 years. but you're not a hoodlum anyway so who cares.

Good thing the FBI hasn't been complicit in any murders lately.

Oh, wait...

"Fark Independent" isn't really independent.

I'm truly independent and I'm on Fark. We're not mythical, we exist. We're just not idiotic partisans who goose step on command. If you have any doubts about my independence and any familiarity with my posts you're an idiot. Your partisanship is just you showing us, proving really, that you're unable to think for yourself. Of course, there's likely something I don't agree with in your favorite side's platform, rhetoric, or behavior that likely won't be able to reason so you'll surely consider me a member of the opposite party and an independent in name only or, as you said, a "Fark Independent."

"Fark Independent" as an attack can be taken to mean, "I am unable and unwilling to think for myself. I can't denounce your views with logic, dismiss them as racist, or fully comprehend the intricacies involved so (I'm)/you're compelled to call someone names, wet (my)yourself, and denounce the other as being illogical and bigoted regardless of merit." It is intellectual dishonest but an oft used tactic.

To cite myself as an example of your idiotic belief system: I've voted for only one winning president and have voted in many more elections than you. That president? It was Clinton, his second term. I have, in all my years, never found a republican presidential candidate that I could vote for. Just because we can think for ourselves and actually act on those thoughts doesn't mean we're Republicans. We don't disagree with you because you're a Democrat. We disagree with you because you're an idiot.

That you need to invent a mythical crea ...

You are quite mistaken from what I've seen as definitions thrown about. As near as I can tell the accused is considered to be a closet republican who decries Bush as being any one of a number of things. The reality is that I detest the Republican party completely and pretty much always have. The same goes for the Democrats in my opinion. I actually consider the Democrats of today to be worse, they should be smart enough to know better where the Republicans are just plain too stupid so they sort of have an excuse.

I have a history of coming out on the side of freedom each and every time and no, I'm not a Libertarian either. I don't fit into your little check boxes, sorry. I'm not that simple. There are quite a few of us that don't drool while raging against the other political parties. We recognize that most of the people who try to get elected are dishonest, selfish, authoritarian, and value only those with money enough to get their attention. I'm surely not the only one nor am I the type of person you snidely call a "Fark Independent" if you elect to adhere to any definition at all. The big difference is that we have a history of this and haven't changed our point of view but has, each time, expressed a desire to ensure that we maintain or gain as many liberties as possible. I'm pretty dedicated to it, I've voted for Nader more times than I think the guy has actually run and I don't vote for him because I want him to win (I'd really rather he not to be honest) but I vote for him because I want them to know that my vote isn't for either of the two parties. It is, I know, a wasted vote.

So don't attempt to lump me in with those same people you refer to as something less than you. We are true independents and we do indeed exist in deed and in name - to the point of having our own officially recognized party (look on your Maine ballot though we are lumped in with Green usually). No no, I do consider it comical when people are snide about it. The reality is that we do exist and, yes, I do consider that a level above being a partisan. I truly do vote across the spectrum and I do indeed research the candidates and I do vote according to how I feel that, not just I but my neighbors as well, we will be represented in the government office for which I'm voting.

NutWrench:gh0strid3r: Asa Phelps: What a waste of money. No such system has ever had more true positives than false positives.

So what you're saying is... if something doesn't work 100% on the first try, we should quit trying?

How about when that something includes the possibility of you being detained or imprisoned because of it?You don't take people out of the loop. Someone has to take the blame when things don't quite reach 100% and it's not going to be "the computer."

So you have proof they have taken people out of the loop? The computer is just going to send anything that looks like a match to get a lethal injection administered by another computer system with no human input in the process? Or is it going to be used to speed up searching through large quantities of footage to highlight possible matches to the investigators so they don't have to spend days watching lots of irrelevant stuff?

People should worry about what the government does, not the fact they use technology to avoid having to have lots of extra unnecessary staff and have to raise taxes to avoid morons that worry about "creepy technology" being used to make the government employee more efficient. Paranoid morons that jump at shadows allows government get away with more stuff because they can group together valid criticisms of their actions with stuff like this, and just claim the criticisms are coming from nutjob conspiracy theorists.

namatad:Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Conservatives (at this place and time) look at the correct fire analogy and history (one does not even to argue "human nature") and distrust all things Big Government.

this, except that you forgot to say "the conservatives SAY that they distrust big government, but the conservatives continue to increase the size of government every chance that they get"